NRA: Armed guards for schools is the answer (Page 4)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() mr2tony - 2012-12-21 2:40 PM mdg2003 - 2012-12-21 1:29 PM Thankfully, or they may have had assault weapons.mr2tony - 2012-12-21 12:56 PM People talk about the hypothetical `A police officer would've stopped him.' a lot. And then there's reality: Columbine had an armed police officer on duty that day. And it occured in the middle of a Federal assault weapons ban. At Columbine they were also carrying pipe bombs and large knives. I don't recall if they used the knives at all but they did attempt to use the pipe bombs. My point: If someone desires to create a mass casualty incident that can chose a variety of weapons. Firearms are not the only weapon that has been used. In 1927 a man in Michigan killed 38 children, 2 teachers, 4 other adults and injured 58 other people with a bombs and incendiary devices. Arming guards at schools would be a positive deterrent to those intent on creating another killing field. Is it possible that the POS that murdered the kids in Connecticut chose Sandy Hook because the local HS had a police officer on duty? |
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() mr2tony - 2012-12-21 1:49 PM And the point is neither did banning weapons stop it from happening. Both solutions don't solve the puzzle.TriRSquared - 2012-12-21 1:46 PM Fair enough. Still doesn't change the fact that the armed police officer didn't stop them from killing 13 people. mr2tony - 2012-12-21 2:40 PM mdg2003 - 2012-12-21 1:29 PM Thankfully, or they may have had assault weapons.mr2tony - 2012-12-21 12:56 PM People talk about the hypothetical `A police officer would've stopped him.' a lot. And then there's reality: Columbine had an armed police officer on duty that day. And it occured in the middle of a Federal assault weapons ban. Sigh... deep breath. First, none of them are AW. Selective fire to be an AW. Please use the terms correctly. Secondly, one of the guns used at Columbine, a 9mm TEC-DC9, was actually part of the Clinton AW ban. So a banned gun was used in a shooting. Imagine that. Banning the sale of a gun does not prevent them from being used in a crime. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() mr2tony - 2012-12-21 1:49 PM TriRSquared - 2012-12-21 1:46 PM Fair enough. Still doesn't change the fact that the armed police officer didn't stop them from killing 13 people. mr2tony - 2012-12-21 2:40 PM mdg2003 - 2012-12-21 1:29 PM Thankfully, or they may have had assault weapons.mr2tony - 2012-12-21 12:56 PM People talk about the hypothetical `A police officer would've stopped him.' a lot. And then there's reality: Columbine had an armed police officer on duty that day. And it occured in the middle of a Federal assault weapons ban. Sigh... deep breath. First, none of them are AW. Selective fire to be an AW. Please use the terms correctly. Secondly, one of the guns used at Columbine, a 9mm TEC-DC9, was actually part of the Clinton AW ban. So a banned gun was used in a shooting. Imagine that. Banning the sale of a gun does not prevent them from being used in a crime.
do you know why he didn't? He wasn't on campus when they attacked. Their plan was to be killed by LE, they never planned on coming out of Columbine alive. They wanted to be gunned down by LE. Someone with a plan to kill is going to kill unless they are stopped |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() SoberTriGuy - 2012-12-21 12:51 PM I'm missing your point. My family knows all about guns and bad people, and police officers. I'm not against guns in America, I never have been. I don't know why civilians need assault rifles. I don't know why people think more guns are the answer. I guess we can wait for someone to snap, then all of the heroes can kill that person with their guns. On an informational note... rulings by the SCOTUS are used to prove both sides right... never the less.... Miller was about a sawed off shot gun and laws passed on full automatic weapons after the Valentine's Day massacre. The court ruled that the tax imposed on automatic weapons was OK, and banned a sawed off shotgun because "it was not a normal weapon used by militia/military". So they did not ban full auto weapons, and they still are not "banned" today. I just have to pay a hefty tax and fill out a bunch of paper work. A gun was banned because it was not a normal weapon of war. If they outright ban semi-automatic rifles... I'm not so sure that will stand up. They most certainly are common personal weapons of the type granted by the 2A. That's really my problem with all this... you want to know why I want one.. .because it is a common weapon good for it's intended purposes. It is not "unusual" in any way, and if full auto weapons are not banned... then why ban semi-auto ones? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() mr2tony - 2012-12-21 1:49 PM TriRSquared - 2012-12-21 1:46 PM Fair enough. Still doesn't change the fact that the armed police officer didn't stop them from killing 13 people. mr2tony - 2012-12-21 2:40 PM mdg2003 - 2012-12-21 1:29 PM Thankfully, or they may have had assault weapons.mr2tony - 2012-12-21 12:56 PM People talk about the hypothetical `A police officer would've stopped him.' a lot. And then there's reality: Columbine had an armed police officer on duty that day. And it occured in the middle of a Federal assault weapons ban. Sigh... deep breath. First, none of them are AW. Selective fire to be an AW. Please use the terms correctly. Secondly, one of the guns used at Columbine, a 9mm TEC-DC9, was actually part of the Clinton AW ban. So a banned gun was used in a shooting. Imagine that. Banning the sale of a gun does not prevent them from being used in a crime. do you propose any solution? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Getting back to the OP. I definitely felt more comfort seeing two armed police at my son's school yesterday. If there was a way to have a security officer, paid for by the NRA at schools who is trained and who can train the teachers and administration, that's a good thing. Joe Biden will come out with an assault weapons ban and tougher handgun restrictions in late January, but this plan covers those who will break those laws. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() jford2309 - 2012-12-21 1:59 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-21 1:49 PM TriRSquared - 2012-12-21 1:46 PM Fair enough. Still doesn't change the fact that the armed police officer didn't stop them from killing 13 people. mr2tony - 2012-12-21 2:40 PM mdg2003 - 2012-12-21 1:29 PM Thankfully, or they may have had assault weapons.mr2tony - 2012-12-21 12:56 PM People talk about the hypothetical `A police officer would've stopped him.' a lot. And then there's reality: Columbine had an armed police officer on duty that day. And it occured in the middle of a Federal assault weapons ban. Sigh... deep breath. First, none of them are AW. Selective fire to be an AW. Please use the terms correctly. Secondly, one of the guns used at Columbine, a 9mm TEC-DC9, was actually part of the Clinton AW ban. So a banned gun was used in a shooting. Imagine that. Banning the sale of a gun does not prevent them from being used in a crime.
do you know why he didn't? He wasn't on campus when they attacked. Their plan was to be killed by LE, they never planned on coming out of Columbine alive. They wanted to be gunned down by LE. Someone with a plan to kill is going to kill unless they are stopped Yes he was. He was sitting in his patrol car in one of the school's parking lots. He even got in a shootout with Harris. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() krenee - 2012-12-21 2:04 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-21 1:49 PM TriRSquared - 2012-12-21 1:46 PM Fair enough. Still doesn't change the fact that the armed police officer didn't stop them from killing 13 people. mr2tony - 2012-12-21 2:40 PM mdg2003 - 2012-12-21 1:29 PM Thankfully, or they may have had assault weapons.mr2tony - 2012-12-21 12:56 PM People talk about the hypothetical `A police officer would've stopped him.' a lot. And then there's reality: Columbine had an armed police officer on duty that day. And it occured in the middle of a Federal assault weapons ban. Sigh... deep breath. First, none of them are AW. Selective fire to be an AW. Please use the terms correctly. Secondly, one of the guns used at Columbine, a 9mm TEC-DC9, was actually part of the Clinton AW ban. So a banned gun was used in a shooting. Imagine that. Banning the sale of a gun does not prevent them from being used in a crime. do you propose any solution? I suggested in another thread stiffer penalties for people who break the law or don't handle or keep their weapons with care. And I mean STIFF penalties. You have to make the laws so strict that people will stop being straw buyers and actually lock up their guns so they're not stolen or taken by friends or family or used to accidentally shoot their kids in their houses. At the very least it'll be more difficult for people who shouldn't have guns to get them, all while not infringing upon people's Second Amendment rights. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() kevin_trapp - 2012-12-21 2:11 PM jford2309 - 2012-12-21 1:59 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-21 1:49 PM TriRSquared - 2012-12-21 1:46 PM Fair enough. Still doesn't change the fact that the armed police officer didn't stop them from killing 13 people. mr2tony - 2012-12-21 2:40 PM mdg2003 - 2012-12-21 1:29 PM Thankfully, or they may have had assault weapons.mr2tony - 2012-12-21 12:56 PM People talk about the hypothetical `A police officer would've stopped him.' a lot. And then there's reality: Columbine had an armed police officer on duty that day. And it occured in the middle of a Federal assault weapons ban. Sigh... deep breath. First, none of them are AW. Selective fire to be an AW. Please use the terms correctly. Secondly, one of the guns used at Columbine, a 9mm TEC-DC9, was actually part of the Clinton AW ban. So a banned gun was used in a shooting. Imagine that. Banning the sale of a gun does not prevent them from being used in a crime.
do you know why he didn't? He wasn't on campus when they attacked. Their plan was to be killed by LE, they never planned on coming out of Columbine alive. They wanted to be gunned down by LE. Someone with a plan to kill is going to kill unless they are stopped Yes he was. He was sitting in his patrol car in one of the school's parking lots. He even got in a shootout with Harris.
he was at lunch outside Edited by jford2309 2012-12-21 2:17 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() jford2309 - 2012-12-21 1:59 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-21 1:49 PM TriRSquared - 2012-12-21 1:46 PM Fair enough. Still doesn't change the fact that the armed police officer didn't stop them from killing 13 people. mr2tony - 2012-12-21 2:40 PM mdg2003 - 2012-12-21 1:29 PM Thankfully, or they may have had assault weapons.mr2tony - 2012-12-21 12:56 PM People talk about the hypothetical `A police officer would've stopped him.' a lot. And then there's reality: Columbine had an armed police officer on duty that day. And it occured in the middle of a Federal assault weapons ban. Sigh... deep breath. First, none of them are AW. Selective fire to be an AW. Please use the terms correctly. Secondly, one of the guns used at Columbine, a 9mm TEC-DC9, was actually part of the Clinton AW ban. So a banned gun was used in a shooting. Imagine that. Banning the sale of a gun does not prevent them from being used in a crime.
do you know why he didn't? He wasn't on campus when they attacked. Their plan was to be killed by LE, they never planned on coming out of Columbine alive. They wanted to be gunned down by LE. Someone with a plan to kill is going to kill unless they are stopped He WAS on campus. And nobody stopped them. They stopped themselves. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() jford2309 - 2012-12-21 12:53 PM My sons middle school has had an officer stationed in it for the entire time my kids have gone there. They love seeing him around the school! Yeah, our school has a resource officer. He carries a gun and a tazer. Our town is so small that all grades are in one building k-high school. My little one (1st grader) is not afraid of the resource officer. We are actually discussing it right now. He says "Officer X teaches me about bullies and makes me feel safe". No associations with Officer X blowing the bad guys up or anything like that. He sees a friendly officer who is there to help. I'm not sure what the right answer. I don't own a gun and I'm not comfortable around guns but those are my issues. I'm trying to keep an open mind and not transfer my issues to my children. But from our personal experience the argument that our children won't feel safe if they see an officer with a gun is not valid. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() mr2tony - 2012-12-21 2:15 PM jford2309 - 2012-12-21 1:59 PM He WAS on campus. And nobody stopped them. They stopped themselves.mr2tony - 2012-12-21 1:49 PM TriRSquared - 2012-12-21 1:46 PM Fair enough. Still doesn't change the fact that the armed police officer didn't stop them from killing 13 people. mr2tony - 2012-12-21 2:40 PM mdg2003 - 2012-12-21 1:29 PM Thankfully, or they may have had assault weapons.mr2tony - 2012-12-21 12:56 PM People talk about the hypothetical `A police officer would've stopped him.' a lot. And then there's reality: Columbine had an armed police officer on duty that day. And it occured in the middle of a Federal assault weapons ban. Sigh... deep breath. First, none of them are AW. Selective fire to be an AW. Please use the terms correctly. Secondly, one of the guns used at Columbine, a 9mm TEC-DC9, was actually part of the Clinton AW ban. So a banned gun was used in a shooting. Imagine that. Banning the sale of a gun does not prevent them from being used in a crime.
do you know why he didn't? He wasn't on campus when they attacked. Their plan was to be killed by LE, they never planned on coming out of Columbine alive. They wanted to be gunned down by LE. Someone with a plan to kill is going to kill unless they are stopped
Not to mention the homemade bombs that never went off like they planned! They were going to cause destruction, they wanted to hurt and kill people regardless of who was there |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() jford2309 - 2012-12-21 2:14 PM kevin_trapp - 2012-12-21 2:11 PM jford2309 - 2012-12-21 1:59 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-21 1:49 PM TriRSquared - 2012-12-21 1:46 PM Fair enough. Still doesn't change the fact that the armed police officer didn't stop them from killing 13 people. mr2tony - 2012-12-21 2:40 PM mdg2003 - 2012-12-21 1:29 PM Thankfully, or they may have had assault weapons.mr2tony - 2012-12-21 12:56 PM People talk about the hypothetical `A police officer would've stopped him.' a lot. And then there's reality: Columbine had an armed police officer on duty that day. And it occured in the middle of a Federal assault weapons ban. Sigh... deep breath. First, none of them are AW. Selective fire to be an AW. Please use the terms correctly. Secondly, one of the guns used at Columbine, a 9mm TEC-DC9, was actually part of the Clinton AW ban. So a banned gun was used in a shooting. Imagine that. Banning the sale of a gun does not prevent them from being used in a crime.
do you know why he didn't? He wasn't on campus when they attacked. Their plan was to be killed by LE, they never planned on coming out of Columbine alive. They wanted to be gunned down by LE. Someone with a plan to kill is going to kill unless they are stopped Yes he was. He was sitting in his patrol car in one of the school's parking lots. He even got in a shootout with Harris.
he was at lunch with a friend of his and came back to the school. He was on campus when the shooting started. He was eating lunch in his patrol car. He fired at the shooters before they went into the school (after they'd been shooting people outside) and called for backup, which, and I could be wrong, I think is standard procedure. If you're a lone patrolman you don't take on an unknown number of assailants. Especially when you're outgunned. But the LE folks would have to talk about procedure. Anyway, he was on campus when the whole thing was going down. Edited by mr2tony 2012-12-21 2:19 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() jford2309 - 2012-12-21 2:14 PM kevin_trapp - 2012-12-21 2:11 PM jford2309 - 2012-12-21 1:59 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-21 1:49 PM TriRSquared - 2012-12-21 1:46 PM Fair enough. Still doesn't change the fact that the armed police officer didn't stop them from killing 13 people. mr2tony - 2012-12-21 2:40 PM mdg2003 - 2012-12-21 1:29 PM Thankfully, or they may have had assault weapons.mr2tony - 2012-12-21 12:56 PM People talk about the hypothetical `A police officer would've stopped him.' a lot. And then there's reality: Columbine had an armed police officer on duty that day. And it occured in the middle of a Federal assault weapons ban. Sigh... deep breath. First, none of them are AW. Selective fire to be an AW. Please use the terms correctly. Secondly, one of the guns used at Columbine, a 9mm TEC-DC9, was actually part of the Clinton AW ban. So a banned gun was used in a shooting. Imagine that. Banning the sale of a gun does not prevent them from being used in a crime.
do you know why he didn't? He wasn't on campus when they attacked. Their plan was to be killed by LE, they never planned on coming out of Columbine alive. They wanted to be gunned down by LE. Someone with a plan to kill is going to kill unless they are stopped Yes he was. He was sitting in his patrol car in one of the school's parking lots. He even got in a shootout with Harris.
he was at lunch with a friend of his and came back to the school. He was eating lunch with another school security officer as they sat in his patrol car in a campus parking lot adjacent to the tennis courts where students frequently smoked. http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/DEPUTIES_TEXT.htm |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() mr2tony - 2012-12-21 1:15 PM jford2309 - 2012-12-21 1:59 PM He WAS on campus. And nobody stopped them. They stopped themselves.mr2tony - 2012-12-21 1:49 PM TriRSquared - 2012-12-21 1:46 PM Fair enough. Still doesn't change the fact that the armed police officer didn't stop them from killing 13 people. mr2tony - 2012-12-21 2:40 PM mdg2003 - 2012-12-21 1:29 PM Thankfully, or they may have had assault weapons.mr2tony - 2012-12-21 12:56 PM People talk about the hypothetical `A police officer would've stopped him.' a lot. And then there's reality: Columbine had an armed police officer on duty that day. And it occured in the middle of a Federal assault weapons ban. Sigh... deep breath. First, none of them are AW. Selective fire to be an AW. Please use the terms correctly. Secondly, one of the guns used at Columbine, a 9mm TEC-DC9, was actually part of the Clinton AW ban. So a banned gun was used in a shooting. Imagine that. Banning the sale of a gun does not prevent them from being used in a crime.
do you know why he didn't? He wasn't on campus when they attacked. Their plan was to be killed by LE, they never planned on coming out of Columbine alive. They wanted to be gunned down by LE. Someone with a plan to kill is going to kill unless they are stopped Not arguing your point.. but it was different back then. Back then police waited for back up and SWAT. The police were terribly criticized for waiting to enter while kids were bing killed. Columbine changed all that and every police force in the country now has "active shooter" procedures to not wait and go in and engage. He wasn't incompetent. He returned fire, called for back up, and followed department procedures. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() jford2309 - 2012-12-21 2:19 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-21 2:15 PM jford2309 - 2012-12-21 1:59 PM He WAS on campus. And nobody stopped them. They stopped themselves.mr2tony - 2012-12-21 1:49 PM TriRSquared - 2012-12-21 1:46 PM Fair enough. Still doesn't change the fact that the armed police officer didn't stop them from killing 13 people. mr2tony - 2012-12-21 2:40 PM mdg2003 - 2012-12-21 1:29 PM Thankfully, or they may have had assault weapons.mr2tony - 2012-12-21 12:56 PM People talk about the hypothetical `A police officer would've stopped him.' a lot. And then there's reality: Columbine had an armed police officer on duty that day. And it occured in the middle of a Federal assault weapons ban. Sigh... deep breath. First, none of them are AW. Selective fire to be an AW. Please use the terms correctly. Secondly, one of the guns used at Columbine, a 9mm TEC-DC9, was actually part of the Clinton AW ban. So a banned gun was used in a shooting. Imagine that. Banning the sale of a gun does not prevent them from being used in a crime.
do you know why he didn't? He wasn't on campus when they attacked. Their plan was to be killed by LE, they never planned on coming out of Columbine alive. They wanted to be gunned down by LE. Someone with a plan to kill is going to kill unless they are stopped
Not to mention the homemade bombs that never went off like they planned! They were going to cause destruction, they wanted to hurt and kill people regardless of who was there This proves my point -- had those bombs gone off, what would a resource officer be able to do even if he would've responded immediately? If those bombs would've gone off they would've killed hundreds and the officer would've been able to do nothing about it. Look, I'm not against police officers in high schools. That's a very common thing. You need them to be on site when a fight breaks out or a random student attacks a teacher or if drugs are found, and in some cases, it would be nice to think they can stop someone from going psycho like this. But in my opinion, posting them at an elementary school is a waste of money and provides only a false sense of security. Just like checking your underwear and shoes at the airport. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() mr2tony - 2012-12-21 2:24 PM jford2309 - 2012-12-21 2:19 PM This proves my point -- had those bombs gone off, what would a resource officer be able to do even if he would've responded immediately? If those bombs would've gone off they would've killed hundreds and the officer would've been able to do nothing about it. Look, I'm not against police officers in high schools. That's a very common thing. You need them to be on site when a fight breaks out or a random student attacks a teacher or if drugs are found, and in some cases, it would be nice to think they can stop someone from going psycho like this. But in my opinion, posting them at an elementary school is a waste of money and provides only a false sense of security. Just like checking your underwear and shoes at the airport. mr2tony - 2012-12-21 2:15 PM jford2309 - 2012-12-21 1:59 PM He WAS on campus. And nobody stopped them. They stopped themselves.mr2tony - 2012-12-21 1:49 PM TriRSquared - 2012-12-21 1:46 PM Fair enough. Still doesn't change the fact that the armed police officer didn't stop them from killing 13 people. mr2tony - 2012-12-21 2:40 PM mdg2003 - 2012-12-21 1:29 PM Thankfully, or they may have had assault weapons.mr2tony - 2012-12-21 12:56 PM People talk about the hypothetical `A police officer would've stopped him.' a lot. And then there's reality: Columbine had an armed police officer on duty that day. And it occured in the middle of a Federal assault weapons ban. Sigh... deep breath. First, none of them are AW. Selective fire to be an AW. Please use the terms correctly. Secondly, one of the guns used at Columbine, a 9mm TEC-DC9, was actually part of the Clinton AW ban. So a banned gun was used in a shooting. Imagine that. Banning the sale of a gun does not prevent them from being used in a crime.
do you know why he didn't? He wasn't on campus when they attacked. Their plan was to be killed by LE, they never planned on coming out of Columbine alive. They wanted to be gunned down by LE. Someone with a plan to kill is going to kill unless they are stopped
Not to mention the homemade bombs that never went off like they planned! They were going to cause destruction, they wanted to hurt and kill people regardless of who was there In this day and age, and as a parent, if it keeps my kids safer and make the bad guys think to not go to a school that has police presence, then I would be all for it. |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() jford2309 - 2012-12-21 2:31 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-21 2:24 PM jford2309 - 2012-12-21 2:19 PM This proves my point -- had those bombs gone off, what would a resource officer be able to do even if he would've responded immediately? If those bombs would've gone off they would've killed hundreds and the officer would've been able to do nothing about it. Look, I'm not against police officers in high schools. That's a very common thing. You need them to be on site when a fight breaks out or a random student attacks a teacher or if drugs are found, and in some cases, it would be nice to think they can stop someone from going psycho like this. But in my opinion, posting them at an elementary school is a waste of money and provides only a false sense of security. Just like checking your underwear and shoes at the airport. mr2tony - 2012-12-21 2:15 PM jford2309 - 2012-12-21 1:59 PM He WAS on campus. And nobody stopped them. They stopped themselves.mr2tony - 2012-12-21 1:49 PM TriRSquared - 2012-12-21 1:46 PM Fair enough. Still doesn't change the fact that the armed police officer didn't stop them from killing 13 people. mr2tony - 2012-12-21 2:40 PM mdg2003 - 2012-12-21 1:29 PM Thankfully, or they may have had assault weapons.mr2tony - 2012-12-21 12:56 PM People talk about the hypothetical `A police officer would've stopped him.' a lot. And then there's reality: Columbine had an armed police officer on duty that day. And it occured in the middle of a Federal assault weapons ban. Sigh... deep breath. First, none of them are AW. Selective fire to be an AW. Please use the terms correctly. Secondly, one of the guns used at Columbine, a 9mm TEC-DC9, was actually part of the Clinton AW ban. So a banned gun was used in a shooting. Imagine that. Banning the sale of a gun does not prevent them from being used in a crime.
do you know why he didn't? He wasn't on campus when they attacked. Their plan was to be killed by LE, they never planned on coming out of Columbine alive. They wanted to be gunned down by LE. Someone with a plan to kill is going to kill unless they are stopped
Not to mention the homemade bombs that never went off like they planned! They were going to cause destruction, they wanted to hurt and kill people regardless of who was there In this day and age, and as a parent, if it keeps my kids safer and make the bad guys think to not go to a school that has police presence, then I would be all for it. Virginia Tech, like most universities, has it's own armed police department. It didn't stop what happened. If an armed officer at your kid's school makes you sleep better at night, great. But it's a knee jerk reaction to a horrific crime. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() kevin_trapp - 2012-12-21 2:35 PM jford2309 - 2012-12-21 2:31 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-21 2:24 PM jford2309 - 2012-12-21 2:19 PM This proves my point -- had those bombs gone off, what would a resource officer be able to do even if he would've responded immediately? If those bombs would've gone off they would've killed hundreds and the officer would've been able to do nothing about it. Look, I'm not against police officers in high schools. That's a very common thing. You need them to be on site when a fight breaks out or a random student attacks a teacher or if drugs are found, and in some cases, it would be nice to think they can stop someone from going psycho like this. But in my opinion, posting them at an elementary school is a waste of money and provides only a false sense of security. Just like checking your underwear and shoes at the airport. mr2tony - 2012-12-21 2:15 PM jford2309 - 2012-12-21 1:59 PM He WAS on campus. And nobody stopped them. They stopped themselves.mr2tony - 2012-12-21 1:49 PM TriRSquared - 2012-12-21 1:46 PM Fair enough. Still doesn't change the fact that the armed police officer didn't stop them from killing 13 people. mr2tony - 2012-12-21 2:40 PM mdg2003 - 2012-12-21 1:29 PM Thankfully, or they may have had assault weapons.mr2tony - 2012-12-21 12:56 PM People talk about the hypothetical `A police officer would've stopped him.' a lot. And then there's reality: Columbine had an armed police officer on duty that day. And it occured in the middle of a Federal assault weapons ban. Sigh... deep breath. First, none of them are AW. Selective fire to be an AW. Please use the terms correctly. Secondly, one of the guns used at Columbine, a 9mm TEC-DC9, was actually part of the Clinton AW ban. So a banned gun was used in a shooting. Imagine that. Banning the sale of a gun does not prevent them from being used in a crime.
do you know why he didn't? He wasn't on campus when they attacked. Their plan was to be killed by LE, they never planned on coming out of Columbine alive. They wanted to be gunned down by LE. Someone with a plan to kill is going to kill unless they are stopped
Not to mention the homemade bombs that never went off like they planned! They were going to cause destruction, they wanted to hurt and kill people regardless of who was there In this day and age, and as a parent, if it keeps my kids safer and make the bad guys think to not go to a school that has police presence, then I would be all for it. Virginia Tech, like most universities, has it's own armed police department. It didn't stop what happened. If an armed officer at your kid's school makes you sleep better at night, great. But it's a knee jerk reaction to a horrific crime.
There are already police officers assigned to schools here, this is not something new in Memphis! |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() powerman - 2012-12-21 2:22 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-21 1:15 PM jford2309 - 2012-12-21 1:59 PM He WAS on campus. And nobody stopped them. They stopped themselves.mr2tony - 2012-12-21 1:49 PM TriRSquared - 2012-12-21 1:46 PM Fair enough. Still doesn't change the fact that the armed police officer didn't stop them from killing 13 people. mr2tony - 2012-12-21 2:40 PM mdg2003 - 2012-12-21 1:29 PM Thankfully, or they may have had assault weapons.mr2tony - 2012-12-21 12:56 PM People talk about the hypothetical `A police officer would've stopped him.' a lot. And then there's reality: Columbine had an armed police officer on duty that day. And it occured in the middle of a Federal assault weapons ban. Sigh... deep breath. First, none of them are AW. Selective fire to be an AW. Please use the terms correctly. Secondly, one of the guns used at Columbine, a 9mm TEC-DC9, was actually part of the Clinton AW ban. So a banned gun was used in a shooting. Imagine that. Banning the sale of a gun does not prevent them from being used in a crime.
do you know why he didn't? He wasn't on campus when they attacked. Their plan was to be killed by LE, they never planned on coming out of Columbine alive. They wanted to be gunned down by LE. Someone with a plan to kill is going to kill unless they are stopped Not arguing your point.. but it was different back then. Back then police waited for back up and SWAT. The police were terribly criticized for waiting to enter while kids were bing killed. Columbine changed all that and every police force in the country now has "active shooter" procedures to not wait and go in and engage. He wasn't incompetent. He returned fire, called for back up, and followed department procedures. I'm not saying he was incompetent by any means. I am just saying that there wasn't anything he could do. He was outmanned and outgunned. In that situation, if he tries to go in alone, he's going to get shot. And that would only add to the tragedy. |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() kevin_trapp - 2012-12-21 3:35 PM jford2309 - 2012-12-21 2:31 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-21 2:24 PM jford2309 - 2012-12-21 2:19 PM This proves my point -- had those bombs gone off, what would a resource officer be able to do even if he would've responded immediately? If those bombs would've gone off they would've killed hundreds and the officer would've been able to do nothing about it. Look, I'm not against police officers in high schools. That's a very common thing. You need them to be on site when a fight breaks out or a random student attacks a teacher or if drugs are found, and in some cases, it would be nice to think they can stop someone from going psycho like this. But in my opinion, posting them at an elementary school is a waste of money and provides only a false sense of security. Just like checking your underwear and shoes at the airport. mr2tony - 2012-12-21 2:15 PM jford2309 - 2012-12-21 1:59 PM He WAS on campus. And nobody stopped them. They stopped themselves.mr2tony - 2012-12-21 1:49 PM TriRSquared - 2012-12-21 1:46 PM Fair enough. Still doesn't change the fact that the armed police officer didn't stop them from killing 13 people. mr2tony - 2012-12-21 2:40 PM mdg2003 - 2012-12-21 1:29 PM Thankfully, or they may have had assault weapons.mr2tony - 2012-12-21 12:56 PM People talk about the hypothetical `A police officer would've stopped him.' a lot. And then there's reality: Columbine had an armed police officer on duty that day. And it occured in the middle of a Federal assault weapons ban. Sigh... deep breath. First, none of them are AW. Selective fire to be an AW. Please use the terms correctly. Secondly, one of the guns used at Columbine, a 9mm TEC-DC9, was actually part of the Clinton AW ban. So a banned gun was used in a shooting. Imagine that. Banning the sale of a gun does not prevent them from being used in a crime.
do you know why he didn't? He wasn't on campus when they attacked. Their plan was to be killed by LE, they never planned on coming out of Columbine alive. They wanted to be gunned down by LE. Someone with a plan to kill is going to kill unless they are stopped
Not to mention the homemade bombs that never went off like they planned! They were going to cause destruction, they wanted to hurt and kill people regardless of who was there In this day and age, and as a parent, if it keeps my kids safer and make the bad guys think to not go to a school that has police presence, then I would be all for it. Virginia Tech, like most universities, has it's own armed police department. It didn't stop what happened. If an armed officer at your kid's school makes you sleep better at night, great. But it's a knee jerk reaction to a horrific crime. A knee jerk reaction is exactly my opinion on banning weapons of any sort. If it hasn't worked in the past (and this is proven correct) what possible benefit could there be on banning them now? I want to know what everyone thinks the root cause of these shootings are? No one is dealing with the root cause. Everyone seems to be worried about the symptoms of the problem, not the root cause. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() I haven't read but the first couple of posts and I did listen to the NRA speech, well until MSNBC cut if off when the x-homeland security guy started talking. What I heard them say, in a nutshell if the government is going to forbid teachers from having the ability to defend themselves then it should be an obligation of the government to provide protection to the teachers and children. What would make the most sense to me would be to remove the ridiculous designation of a gun free zone and allow school employees who are willing and able to legally carry a concealed weapon to do so. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() kevin_trapp - 2012-12-21 1:35 PM Virginia Tech, like most universities, has it's own armed police department. It didn't stop what happened. If an armed officer at your kid's school makes you sleep better at night, great. But it's a knee jerk reaction to a horrific crime. Exactly... just like more knee jerk gun laws that do nothing. Just like more knee jerk penalties that do nothing. Just like more knee jerk commitments for mentally ill.Just like more knee jerk speeches about getting tough on crime. And more knee jerk reactions like TSA and Homeland defense and the Patriot Act. Why are we even bothering? Let's just do nothing. Think of all the money we would save. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() mr2tony - 2012-12-21 1:45 PM powerman - 2012-12-21 2:22 PM I'm not saying he was incompetent by any means. I am just saying that there wasn't anything he could do. He was outmanned and outgunned. In that situation, if he tries to go in alone, he's going to get shot. And that would only add to the tragedy. mr2tony - 2012-12-21 1:15 PM jford2309 - 2012-12-21 1:59 PM He WAS on campus. And nobody stopped them. They stopped themselves.mr2tony - 2012-12-21 1:49 PM TriRSquared - 2012-12-21 1:46 PM Fair enough. Still doesn't change the fact that the armed police officer didn't stop them from killing 13 people. mr2tony - 2012-12-21 2:40 PM mdg2003 - 2012-12-21 1:29 PM Thankfully, or they may have had assault weapons.mr2tony - 2012-12-21 12:56 PM People talk about the hypothetical `A police officer would've stopped him.' a lot. And then there's reality: Columbine had an armed police officer on duty that day. And it occured in the middle of a Federal assault weapons ban. Sigh... deep breath. First, none of them are AW. Selective fire to be an AW. Please use the terms correctly. Secondly, one of the guns used at Columbine, a 9mm TEC-DC9, was actually part of the Clinton AW ban. So a banned gun was used in a shooting. Imagine that. Banning the sale of a gun does not prevent them from being used in a crime.
do you know why he didn't? He wasn't on campus when they attacked. Their plan was to be killed by LE, they never planned on coming out of Columbine alive. They wanted to be gunned down by LE. Someone with a plan to kill is going to kill unless they are stopped Not arguing your point.. but it was different back then. Back then police waited for back up and SWAT. The police were terribly criticized for waiting to enter while kids were bing killed. Columbine changed all that and every police force in the country now has "active shooter" procedures to not wait and go in and engage. He wasn't incompetent. He returned fire, called for back up, and followed department procedures. Understandable Tony... but that ids what he signed up for. He signed up to protect the public even if that means he puts him self in danger. The Principal of SH never signed up to a be an unarmed human shield. She just did all she could with what she had. I'm not saying she should have been armed, I'm just saying that when people start dying, others rush to help how ever they can. At least police know what they are signing up for. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() crusevegas - 2012-12-21 3:02 PM What would make the most sense to me would be to remove the ridiculous designation of a gun free zone and allow school employees who are willing and able to legally carry a concealed weapon to do so. I’m not comfortable with that. Unless they’re also going to have to be certified that they’re properly trained to use their weapon in a combat setting, I wouldn’t feel better about having random school personnel carrying guns on school property. A bunch of poorly-trained teachers opening fire in a crowded school full of kids has as much chance of making a situation worse as it does of improving it. |
|